Hello, world
posted by Thomas Nephew at 2:19:00 AM -- |    

 

Work
...has piled up; I'm going to be back on the weekend, after posting one more piece now. In other news, thanks very much! to Glenn Reynolds for the link on his Instapundit site. "Maybe I'll revisit the whole reproductive cloning issue," Newsrack said, ignoring groans throughout the blogosphere. At any rate, I hope I can get back to some serious blogging in a few days. posted by Thomas Nephew at 8:55:00 PM -- |    

 

Casualty estimates drop. That's nice.
Fellow Democrat (or at least fellow Gore voter) Steve Den Beste notes AP reporter Laura King's report on Afghan casualties, which takes issue with the widely cited and widely debunked claims by Mark Herold, a University of New Hampshire economics professor. Steve notes that King shows how Herold's reliance on Taliban-supplied figures skewed his results. He goes on to say:

The AP's number at this point is 500-600, certainly well below Herold's estimate. That figure is expected to rise in further investigation, but probably not by all that much.

All civilian casualties are regrettable. It would be nice if none were ever inflicted. But not even the US has yet developed a bomb which can read the minds of the people in the area and only kill the ones who harbor hostile thoughts while leaving the innocent untouched. The American bombing campaign of Afghanistan is remarkable not because of how many civilians died in it, but because of how few did. In those terms, it is easily the most successful major military campaign in history. There has never been a campaign where so many cities were taken while inflicting so few casualties on civilians.

The only way to not inflict any civilian casualties at all is to not attack. Which, I think, is the point that Herold's fans are trying to make, because that is what they really wanted.

I agree with Steve on this, and have posted a similar viewpoint myself in the past. It's nice to see the figures are lower than Herold claims they were. But frankly, I would not have changed my support for the war if there could have been several times as many casualties as Herold claimed. The war was -- and is -- in self-defense. posted by Thomas Nephew at 8:34:00 PM -- |    

 

Holy smokes, I'm a blog of the week
I've been declared a blog of the week by Ms. Moira Breen, of "Inappropriate". Thank you! Now I'll have to watch myself. I'll be dealing a little more with German blogdom in the near future, some interesting goings-on over at the estimable Le Sofa Blog. Other than that, it's day to day, catch as catch can. I join in recommending Hlatky and Dodgson, who I read often. I like the blog of the week idea, it's just so much work for someone as lazy as I am.

I'd also like to thank Matt Welch for his generous link to my blog last week; this little blog's hit counter was smoking for a few days there. Matt has an upcoming article on Iraq sanctions in Reason magazine that I'm looking forward to, but don't see yet. Meanwhile, the hit counts are back to normal now. Hmm. Anyway, my attempted humor about sentence diagramming was yet another example of what my brother calls my "comically bad timing." Matt is definitely no "fish in the barrel" hunter, witness his takes on Afghan casualties, American hegemony, and many others. Not that he needs an introduction from me! posted by Thomas Nephew at 12:30:00 PM -- |    

 
Who's smearing here?
Will Warren, of the usually amusing "Unremitting Verse":

A pose humane,
A smear campaign,
The ecstasy of feeling someone else’s pain,
The lack of a connection ‘tween your mouth and brain—
I wish I were a Dem again!
The writing trite,
The thinking slight,
The effortless assumption that you’re in the right,
The looking down on others from a giddy height—
I wish I were a Dem again!
Left no more,
Know the score,
I deplore sham ...
But I miss all the flimflam!
I don’t demur
To disinter
Those glory days when leftishness was de rigueur.
Now everything’s so normal and I wish I were
A Dem again!

Backatcha, Will. In fact, it seems to me the whole thing applies more to the author than to the target (writing trite, thinking slight, and above all the effortless assumption he's in the right). Full disclosure, doubtless no surprise: I'm a Democrat and proud of it. I tend not to pen semi-funny little rhymes at my political opponents' expense, or smear them, or accuse them of no connection between mouth and brain, I leave that to others. In my experience, they're usually ... well ... not Democrats.

All in fun? Nope. Not funny.


=====
Update: Mr. Warren has revised the post, substituting "rad" for "Dem", attributing the change in part to this post, but mainly to his feeling that this was more what he intended to write. I did not ask for such a revision directly, but I appreciate it, given that he believes it's truer to his own intent. For my part, not being without sins of my own in this department, I shouldn't throw stones in the first place, especially at writing that is clearly intended to be humorous. I'll try to do better. posted by Thomas Nephew at 7:09:00 AM -- |    

 

Casus belli
I received a long reader response (with the above title) to the Imbalance of bluster piece below. The reader requested anonymity, but the points s/he makes deserve response:

The only reason why Israel isn't fighting a high intensity war right now is that its neighbours (rightly) don't think they'd win. If they had better armies, they would invade in an instant (see 48, 67, 76), but their history has told them that invading Israel is a bad idea. Similarly, China hasn't invaded Taiwan because it doesn't think it will win (especially if the US joins in). [...]

While I understand your legalistic desire for a set code of conduct, the establishment of such a code presupposes good faith actors. As is seen in national court systems, people play cute with the rules to get away with actions that violates the intent of the law but not its wording. This is acceptable in society, as the dangers are relatively small (usually less than 50 casualties at the extreme, some economic damage). In international relations, the stakes are too high to risk that (casualties from 10^3 to 10^9, total economic collapse).

I may surprise and please this reader by saying “Basically, I agree with your first point.” However, I may annoy him/her all over again by saying “But that misses my point.” I’m not so daft as to think that international law by itself keeps nations in line. Israel’s and Taiwan’s armed forces, and those of their likely ally the United States, are ultimately what preserve their security.

I do believe that the conventions and treaties of international relations matter, though. The emphasis on “ultimately” suggests there are penultimate and earlier phases in which international opinion and law have real roles to play. Lines in the sand are drawn, nations take sides, threats and promises are made, coalitions are formed, painful actions short of war are explored and carried out. Among the principal groups are the "play by the rules" nations and the "don't give a hoot" nations (a.k.a "rogue", a.k.a. "axis of evil" nations). The Gulf War coalition had many members and few overt opponents -- just one really -- because it was (arguably) a "play by the rules" coalition that even Russia and China didn't want to oppose. There will always be those who "play cute with the rules"; that's not an argument against having the rules. And having rules is no good if you don't follow them.

Let's remember, the idea (at least for most of us) is to get what you want without actually going to war. The argument I have with "More Than Zero" (MTZ, who agrees with this) is whether threatening to start wars, and thus abrogate our own adherence to international law, is a credible threat or not. If it is just a threat, then MTZ and, to a degree, Matt Welch today*, undermine the threat itself by assuring one and all that’s all it is. And if it's just a threat, then the risk you run is that the bluff gets called. I argue, and I think perfectly patriotically, that it's not a good idea for the U.S. to get its bluffs called.

But if it’s not just a threat, if we’re really just a replenished supply of JDAM munitions and cruise missiles away from going after Iraq, then we’re headed into a new era of international relations. As I suggested in "Imbalance of bluster," it may require essentially withdrawing from the United Nations and the Security Council. The era may be a more honest one, but it will also basically be a “might makes right” one. That seemingly works to the United States advantage now, but that may not always be the case. I argue -- and again, I think, perfectly patriotically -- that we don't want to become the world's policeman and judge and jury; that spreading some of the responsibility for world order around makes good sense; that international institutions -- many, like the United Nations, of our own design -- have generally served us well for many years. We see the foul-ups, like in the Balkans or Somalia; we ignore the successes, like in the Gulf War or the Cold War.

Where I also agree with my reader is that the stakes are very high, indeed; I'm certainly no more interested in waiting for a terrorist or Iran/Iraq/North Korea weapon to suddenly blow up an American city than s/he is. That's why I'm looking for a way out of the dilemma posed by the UN convention against pre-emptive war -- a UN convention we've signed up for -- and suggested the perhaps fanciful notion of a new doctrine that spells out consequences for nations acquiring WMD or supporting terrorism (which then must be defined, after all). To my mind, time's a-wasting in spelling out that doctrine clearly, and beginning the diplomatic heavy lifting that would go into making it a U.N. doctrine. Or time's a-wasting in figuring out how we want a US-not-in-the-UN world to work -- and apprising the American public of the possibility. That just might put a bit of a dent in those Bush approval ratings.

But maybe we're just bluffing. Good?

=====
* Welch argues that Hussein will give us all a way out by offering weapons inspections, and that's all Bush wanted. MTZ notes Welch's point with satisfaction -- but then essentially says Saddam will merely pretend compliance with weapons inspections. That sounds like a called bluff to me. posted by Thomas Nephew at 5:04:00 PM -- |